get_triggered_alerts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the persistence behavior (records don't vanish when agent is offline) and mentions optional filter and pagination, but does not address whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or details the response format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes two key features (optional filter and pagination), with no redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks response structure, semantics for request_id and idempotency_key, pagination behavior, and any error handling or edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It references an alert_id filter and pagination, which maps to alert_id and limit/cursor, but leaves request_id and idempotency_key entirely unmentioned, and does not give parameter names or value constraints beyond what the schema types provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'döner' (returns) with a specific resource ('kalıcı tetiklenme kayıtları' – persistent trigger records), clearly distinguishing it from tools like list_alerts. It also adds the persistence qualifier, which states the records are kept even when the agent is offline.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving triggered alert records, particularly those that occurred during agent downtime, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_alerts or other alert-related tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.